An Act to repeal 757.07 (4m) (a); to renumber 757.07 (6); to renumber and amend 59.43 (1r); to amend 757.07 (1) (g) 1., 757.07 (1) (i), 757.07 (1) (k), 757.07 (2) (a), 757.07 (4) (b) 1. a., 757.07 (4) (b) 2., 757.07 (4) (d), 757.07 (4) (e) 1., 757.07 (4m) (b) and 757.07 (5) (b); to create 59.43 (1r) (b) 3., 757.07 (1) (am), 757.07 (1) (em), 757.07 (1) (im), 757.07 (2) (c), 757.07 (4) (e) 2. d., 757.07 (4m) (c) and 757.07 (6) (b) of the statutes; Relating to: privacy protections for judicial officers.
Sponsored By: Van Wanggaard (Republican)
Signed by Governor
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
10 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 1 costs, 7 mixed.
Agencies must honor judicial privacy requests
Judicial officers send requests directly to each agency’s designated recipient; without one, the highest-ranking officer or employee handles them. Each quarter, the state courts director sends requester lists to designated recipients, who promptly forward them to agencies they oversee. Receiving the list counts as receiving a written request. Organizations receiving requests or release consents can keep requester lists and share them internally. Privacy protections override conflicting public-posting requirements. The direct-submission rule initially applies only to requests submitted on the relevant subsection’s effective date.
Judicial officers can enforce privacy rights
Judicial officers whose information is unlawfully made public can seek an order stopping a responsible private party or declaring their rights. For alleged government-agency violations, officers use a separate court process called mandamus to seek compliance. Courts must award costs and reasonable attorney fees to officers who win these cases. The responsible private party or government agency pays the award.
False judicial privacy forms risk prison
Anyone who intentionally submits false information on a privacy request or release consent can face prosecution. False swearing involving these forms is a Class H felony. It carries up to a $10,000 fine, up to six years in prison, or both.
Judicial campaign filings get privacy protection
After a written request, the Wisconsin Ethics Commission must protect judicial officers’ personal information in covered financial-interest and campaign filings. Covered records include registration statements and campaign reports filed by the officer or the officer’s campaign committee. Information filed under chapter 13, subchapter III, is excluded. The Commission must review its electronic campaign finance system quarterly and remove judicial officers’ personal information.
Judicial officers get confidential privacy forms
Judicial officers must use the state courts director’s notarized form and clearly identify the information they want protected. Release consents also require a prescribed, notarized form; family members can consent only to releasing their own information. Blank and completed forms are confidential, but the fact that a request or consent exists remains public. The notarization and information-detail requirements initially apply only to requests submitted on the relevant subsection’s effective date.
Judicial privacy allows limited record sharing
Protected information can be shared between agencies and disclosed for legally required notices, including sex-offender notices. Title insurers, their authorized agents, licensed land surveyors, attorneys, and adjacent landowners seeking land records can also receive covered records. Records shared between agencies or with those professionals and landowners cannot be made public. Sending agencies must pass along applicable privacy requests and notify the officer as the request directs. The receiving agency is treated as having received the privacy request.
Judicial families can hide land-record names
Covered land-record websites must offer a written opt-out to hide judicial officers’ and immediate families’ names from display and search. Only the officer or an employer representative can request it, not a family member acting alone. Coverage includes linked public property or geographic databases, but excludes a register of deeds index. Addresses can remain visible if the name-address link is broken and searches cannot show the removed name. An address used for verification, such as utility or emergency services, is excluded from protection when no owner or occupant name appears.
Judicial home privacy has clear limits
Judicial officers can list up to two secondary homes for address protection in their written requests. Each must be somewhere they regularly live at least 14 days a year, apart from their permanent home. Privacy requests generally last 10 years, or until the officer’s death. When a property stops being a permanent or designated secondary home, its protection ends within 90 days. The officer must notify agencies that received the request within those 90 days.
Judicial land-record shielding requires document numbers
Registers of deeds must shield electronic images of electronic recorded documents identified by number in a judicial officer’s written request. This shielding rule does not cover documents that are not electronic recorded documents. Access remains allowed with the officer’s consent or through the law’s listed disclosure exceptions.
Businesses can share protected judicial information
Law-enforcement support organizations and vendors providing data-support services to law-enforcement agencies qualify for a data-broker exception. Charities do not qualify as support organizations for this exception. Businesses covered by listed data-broker exceptions can transfer protected information to third parties for a business need. Neither the business nor the recipient can publicly post or display that information.
Sponsors & Cosponsors
Sponsor
Van Wanggaard
Republican • Senate
Cosponsors
Barbara Dittrich
Republican • House
Rick Gundrum
Republican • House
Rob Kreibich
Republican • House
David Murphy
Republican • House
Jerry O'Connor
Republican • House
William Penterman
Republican • House
Melissa Ratcliff
Democratic • Senate
Christine Sinicki
Democratic • House
Lisa Subeck
Democratic • House
Ron Tusler
Republican • House
Roll Call Votes
No roll call votes available for this bill.
Actions Timeline
Published 8-9-2025
8/11/2025SenateReport approved by the Governor on 8-8-2025. 2025 Wisconsin Act 25
8/11/2025SenatePresented to the Governor on 8-7-2025
8/7/2025SenateReport correctly enrolled
6/25/2025SenateLRB correction (Senate Substitute Amendment 1)
6/25/2025SenateReceived from Assembly concurred in
6/24/2025SenateOrdered immediately messaged
6/24/2025HouseRead a third time and concurred in
6/24/2025HouseRules suspended
6/24/2025HouseOrdered to a third reading
6/24/2025HouseRead a second time
6/24/2025HouseRules suspended to withdraw from calendar and take up
6/24/2025HouseRepresentatives Stubbs and Ortiz-Velez added as cosponsors
6/24/2025HouseRead first time and referred to calendar of 6-24-2025
6/20/2025HouseReceived from Senate
6/19/2025HouseOrdered immediately messaged
6/18/2025SenateRead a third time and passed
6/18/2025SenateRules suspended to give bill its third reading
6/18/2025SenateOrdered to a third reading
6/18/2025SenateSenate Substitute Amendment 1 adopted
6/18/2025SenateRead a second time
6/18/2025SenateSenator Ratcliff added as a coauthor
6/18/2025SenatePlaced on calendar 6-18-2025 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
6/17/2025SenateAvailable for scheduling
6/5/2025SenateReport passage as amended recommended by Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, Ayes 8, Noes 0
6/5/2025Senate
Bill Text
Senate Substitute Amendment 1
6/5/2025
Bill Text
Related Bills
AB913, An Act to create 71.05 (6) (b) 57. of the statutes; Relating to: subtraction for certain income of members of the National Guard and Reserves. (FE)
AB80, An Act to renumber 457.25 (1); to amend 46.90 (4) (ab) 4., 48.56 (2), 48.561 (2), 49.45 (30j) (a) 1., 51.03 (6) (a), 55.043 (1m) (a) 4., 146.81 (1) (hg), 146.89 (1) (r) 6., 146.89 (1) (r) 7., 146.997 (1) (d) 11., 252.14 (1) (ar) 7., 252.15 (1) (er), 253.10 (2) (f), 303.08 (1) (f), 440.03 (13) (b) (intro.), 440.15, 446.01 (1v) (m), 450.10 (3) (a) 10., 457.01 (1c), 457.01 (1r), 457.01 (10), 457.02 (5) and (5m), 457.03 (2), 457.033, 457.035 (2), 457.04 (1), 457.04 (2), 457.04 (4), 457.04 (7), 457.09 (4) (b) 1., 457.09 (4) (b) 2., 457.24 (1), 457.26 (2) (intro.) and 905.04 (1) (g); to repeal and recreate 632.89 (1) (dm); to create 14.898, 440.03 (11m) (c) 2v., 440.03 (13) (c) 1. id., 457.01 (5g), 457.01 (5j), 457.01 (12), 457.08 (4m), 457.25 (1g) and subchapter III of chapter 457 [precedes 457.70] of the statutes; Relating to: ratification of the Social Work Licensure Compact. (FE)
SB45, An Act; Relating to: state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the 2025 legislature. (FE)
AB1034, An Act to amend 20.285 (1) (gj); to create 20.285 (1) (cj), 20.285 (1) (ck), 20.285 (1) (cL) and 36.11 (12) of the statutes; Relating to: name, image, and likeness rights for University of Wisconsin System student athletes; maintenance costs for University of Wisconsin–Madison intercollegiate athletic facilities; and making an appropriation. (FE)
AB650, An Act to amend 20.445 (1) (aL) of the statutes; Relating to: funding for identity verification under the unemployment insurance law and making an appropriation. (FE)
AB219, An Act to amend 71.05 (6) (a) 15., 71.21 (4) (a), 71.26 (2) (a) 4., 71.34 (1k) (g) and 71.45 (2) (a) 10.; to create 71.07 (8t), 71.10 (4) (cu), 71.28 (8t), 71.30 (3) (cu), 71.47 (8t), 71.49 (1) (cu) and 73.03 (78) of the statutes; Relating to: a tax credit for rail infrastructure modernization. (FE)